SANGHI MOTORS BOMBAY LTD Vs. M T SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by a Private Limited Company and a division thereof taking exception to the cognizance taken against them by a Magistrate upon a complaint of Respondent 1 that they have committed offences punishable under Ss. 341 and 447 r/w. 34 of the I. P. C.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 claiming to be the Manager of a premises Co-operative Society purports to act under a resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the said Society on 25 Feb. 1985. It is claimed that the Society owns property known as Mani Mahal situate at 11/21 Mathew Road Bombay-4. The society has 16 members/occupants. Petitioners are occupants of the ground floor of the building being tenants of a member Mrs. Ben D. Patel. They have raised a garden in the open space and have put up a cordon beyond the said garden. This constitutes criminal trespass as it has been done with an intent to annoy the members and tenants of the Society in possession of the property. Next, as a result of acts of the Petitioners, the members and occupants who have a right to the unrestricted use of the usurped area, have been wrongfully retrained from using the same. Petitioners have thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 447, 341 r/w. 34 I. P. C. On receipt of the complaint a preliminary statement of the complainant was recorded and thereafter the Magistrate directed the issue of process against Petitioners.

(3.) PETITIONERS contend that the recitals in the complaint and the preliminary statement do not make out any offence. They are Companies and it is unthinkable that they would have the requisite mens rea which is an essential, ingredient of the offence of criminal trespass and wrongly restraint punishable, under Ss. 447 and 341 of the I. P. C. Both the offences are punishable with imprisonment or fine and the companies which have a mere juristic existence cannot be imprisoned. The Magistrate has not applied this mind to this aspect of the case and therefore the order taking evidence had to be quashed. In reply, it is contended that the recitals appearing in the complaint make out a prima facie case that the Petitioners have committed the offence ascribed to them. Being Companies does not exonerate them from the punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Ss. 447 and 341 I. P. C.